I will be putting forward the argument that God does Exists, my opponent will be arguing that this is not true.

Round 1 will be for acceptance
Round 2 will be for initial arguments
Round 4 will be for summerising with no new additonal argument

A definition of God has been requested so here is the definition for this debate.

God (noun)
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes;

I will be concentrating on the broader second definition of god, which needs some further clarification on it's definintion.
superhuman - having or showing exceptional ability or powers
Being - A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one
Worship - show reverence and adoration for

Also a definintion of exists is required
Exist - to have being or reality; to be

To give an expanded definition of god.
A real or imaginary living creature or entity having or showing exceptional ability or powers, shown reverence and adoration for having power over human fortunes.

By these definition the shear fact that people believe in a god defines the gods existance.
Being & Worship
People believe and actively worship god or gods - https://humanism.org.uk...
Superhuman
People make actions based on their beliefs - http://www.econ.ucsb.edu...
The action of many poeple is greater than any individual could achieve - I don't believe a study is required for this, it's basic maths
These actions affect peoples fortunes - Again I don't believe this required citing
Existance is defined by being

In order to prove that a god exists, Pro must show that there is credible evidence to indicate the existence of one.

No one who has lived during the past almost two millennia (other than inmates of mental institutions and crackpot cult leaders) has claimed to have seen God with their own eyes. We only have anecdotal evidence and "personal testimony" that such a being exists. Surely an all powerful being who sits in judgement on the entire human race, and bases their destiny on whether or not they believe in him would be capable of providing better evidence for his own existence. Where are the burning bushes and the flaming chariots from heaven in the twenty first century?

Thanks to advances in science over centuries, there are now very few mysteries that require a god figure to explain them, and Occam's razor leads us to conclude that if any particular occurrence or phenomenon can be explained with or without a god, we should choose without by default.

If we are to accept that a god exists, we should only do so in response to solid evidence. I look forward to Pro introducing such evidence.

With regards to evidence
The evidence and reasoning behind existence is clearly shown within my opening statement and has not been refuted. I am arguing here that god exists within the minds of people, which in turn effects their behaviour, having impact on other humans, thus fitting in with the definition at question.

Con seems to be under the impression that I am discussing a Christian god specifically, I never stated that I was.

With regards to Cons comments regarding witnessing and proving
Something not being visible does not stop it's existence nor does our knowledge of such a thing either determine it's existence. For this argument I will back it up with an example, the Higgs Boson. Prior to 1964 humanity was completely unaware of it's existence and going back further, that it had any effect upon us. Prior to 2012 we had no proof of it's existence either. So I would argue that not being aware of something, being unable to measure it and being unable to prove it does not prevent it existing.

Occam's razor does not lead to conclusions but assumptions.

Once again as I stated in my opening statement, I am an atheist. I am participating in this debate from a point of view different to my own in order to give myself a more challenging debate. Unfortunately, my opponent is not addressing my line of thinking.

Before I turn my attention to rebutting Pro's arguments for the existence of a god, there are a couple of points of order which require addressing. Firstly, pro has taken me to task for not answering his arguments in round two. Yet Pro himself set the rule that round two is for initial arguments. Therefore, I restricted myself in that round to outlining my case. If anyone has committed a "violation" here, it is my opponent, who defined the meaning of the terms used in this debate in round one, and then redefined them after the debate was accepted in his second round argument.

Secondly, my opponent has now twice pointed out that he is arguing something which he does not actually believe. Of course, he is perfectly entitled to do that, but I do not understand the point in mentioning it here not once, but twice. Surely Pro is not under the impression that there are bonus points available for playing devil's advocate - or in this case, God's advocate?

Concerning Pro's rather interesting contention that if a single person or the majority of people (he is not clear as to which) chooses to believe in a god, that by definition means that a god exists - I scarcely need to refute the idea, as Pro himself refutes it in the third round. Introducing his example of the Higgs boson, he states "nor does our knowledge of such a thing either determine it's existence" (sic). In other words, the Higgs boson did not magically spring into existence in 1964 when someone imagined it, nor in 2012 when its existence was proven experimentally. If we take this ad populem argument to its logical conclusion, we are forced to accept a large number of ridiculous contentions, such as - the sun really did revolve around the earth prior to Copernicus proving otherwise; and prior to the voyages of Columbus, the earth really was flat.

As to the issue of which particular god or gods we are talking about in this debate, it scarcely matters. If Pro can prove the existence of any one, he will have made his case. It could be the Christian god, or Ba'al, or Kali, or Thor, Ra, Osiris - or any one of thousands of others. But since millions of people have believed in all of the above at some point in history or another, do all of these gods exist? The pitfalls of the subjectivist approach, and the difficulties caused by conflicting religious experiences are discussed at some length by Tim Holt [1].

Pro's argument amounts to nothing more than word games - people imagine a god, therefore a god exists (in their mind). The same argument could be used to prove the existence of unicorns, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Any sane adult knows that none of the above exists in reality, so if Pro wants us to believe in a god, he doesn't have much time left to provide some tangible evidence.

I sincerely apologise for my statement about Con's rebuttals. I have a few debates ongoing at the moment and I thought that this debate followed a different structure. Con was right and conformed to the structure of the debate correctly, please ignore my comments around the lack of rebuttals from the debate. Once again I apologise for this mistake on my part.

My instance on pointing out that I am not a believer is actually there for cons benefit, so that they can understand my perspective. The statements are not being made in order to score extra points.

In this argument I am referring to multiple people believing in a deity of some description. If refer back to my initial argument in which I thought I had made it clear I was talking about multiple people.

If there are not multiple people that believe in some form of a deity or multiple deities then my argument falls down. However, they are not required to have the same complete opinion of what that god stands for.

With regards to belief leading to existence, Con seems to have misread or misinterpreted my argument, that or I did not make my argument clear in the first place. For something to be considered god it must be superhuman, that requires it to show exceptional abilities or powers. So on just the basis of people believing in something, you could not conclude that it exists. It is only when that belief leads to actions greater than any single human could achieve that you could consider the god to exist. Some references backing up that religious beliefs have impacted on the world in great ways, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

My argument is a lot more than word games I belive I am perfectly justified in bringing the definitions forwards. Con has at no point claimed my definitions to be incorrect because they are accurate definitions for the words in use, Con is having problems because they were expecting a typical argument for god existence and they did not receive one. To summarise my rational and Con's responses;

Definition of God as given in the God - "a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes";

Firstly I showed that God is a being that is worshippedCon has not refuted that god is a being that is worshipped

I then went on to show that God is superhuman and has power over human fortunesCon has not refuted that actions caused by god are greater than a single person could achieve or that this has an impact on peoples futures.

By showing that God is a being, I have shown Existence by the definition; This is the only point that Con is potentially arguing on, he has requested evidence and stated that my argument for existence is ad populem, he has not raised any other valid arguments just reworded the same position. I provided a solid example of how evidence was not required to define something's existence but in this case I have provided evidence of the impact god has on the world, through people. My argument is not on the grounds of "ad populem", I am not arguing that the god/gods that people believe in exist directly but that because their actions are affected by this belief, god becomes real in the impact it has on the world. Con has not refuted the impact god has on the world or that the impact is real.

I thank Pro for his comments in correcting his original complaint about non-rebuttal in round two, and accept his apology.

Let's go back to definitions and fundamentals. Pro has claimed that I have not rebutted these - for the very good reason that I largely agree with him:

>>>"God - "a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes";"

Accepted.

>>>"Firstly I showed that God is a being that is worshipped"

Agreed, I see no reason to dispute this.

>>>"I then went on to show that God is superhuman and has power over human fortunes"

Again, this would appear to make sense.

So basically, we agree that gods are more powerful than humans, that they influence the lives of people by their actions, and that people worship them. The thing we don't appear to agree on is whether they actually exist.

Let me quote the closing argument in Pro's case:

"god becomes real in the impact it has on the world. Con has not refuted the impact god has on the world or that the impact is real."

Pro quotes three articles in support of this idea. The first points out that the laws and customs adopted by society are largely rooted in religious origins. The second is a discussion of whether Christianity or atheism have been responsible for the most deaths throughout history. The final article is a discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The only thing that all three of these articles have in common is that not a single one of them uses their discussion to prove the existence of a god, or even makes the claim that a god exists. I am therefore at a loss to see how these support Pro's contention.

There is a glaring error of logic in Pro's attempt to show that "god becomes real" by virtue of some impact belief in him (or her) makes. Essentially the argument boils down to this:

God has an impact
The impact is real
Therefore god is real

The placebo effect totally disproves this argument. Fake "medications" (e.g. sugar pills) have been shown to have real effects on various ailments. That does not make the fake medication real. The cure or improvement is brought about by the response of the patient(s). In the same way, an effect on a population because of belief in a god does not prove that the god is real, it proves that human behaviour is affected by that belief - and that is all it proves. In short, non-real (imaginary) things can have real impacts.

I might believe (incorrectly - based on totally irrational conclusions about supposed "evidence") that my spouse is having an affair. I might, based on my erroneous conclusions, decide to commit homicide with respect to both my spouse and the golf pro. One could argue that these are very real impacts, however the affair is not real, it exists only in my mind. And no matter how huge or widespread the impacts, or how passionately held is the belief, it doesn't make the object of the belief real.

Pro has not provided a single shred of evidence to prove the objective existence of a god, nor does his idea of a god "made" real because of belief hold water. God (still) does not exist.

Yes, because humans were more naive back then.
They even believed that lightning was evidence of God, now it is not.
Theists have always had Burden Of Proof for their consistent Assertion that God Exists.

All Atheists have ever done is call Theists attention to the fact that they have failed their BOP consistently.

Now Theists are having to try and satisfy their BOP by trying to find something science is still questioning, such as Quantum mechanics.
Essentially Theists are making stuff up and pretending it satisfies their BOP.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
Really, Quantum Mechanics is a long way from satisfying the Theists assertion of the Existence Of God.

They have nothing tangible left in existence to satisfy their BOP, they are lost and clutching at straws.
Truthfully, Theism has lost the battle, they have failed their BOP responsibility.
Essentially Theism is drowning without any life raft to swim to.

Atheism has never and never will have BOP, because Atheism is not the side that is making an Assertion that an imaginary being actually exists.
That is the Assertion only of Theism and thus will always be their BOP commitment.

Atheism is simply the stating disbelief that Theism cannot make such an Assertion.
Atheists are just Theism deniers.
Their call is: We don't believe that the Theists Assertion That God Exists is True!

There is no evidence for God in Quantum Mechanics.
To state that Quantum Mechanics proves God Exists is an argument from Ignorance of Quantum Mechanics.
Thus fallacious.
Same as all uses of things Science hasn't explained yet to prove God Exists.
All Argument From Ignorance Fallacies.

Just as back in time when Lightning was used as Proof Of God's Existence.
They were Ignorant of the real cause of Lightning.

Just as those using Quantum Mechanics are Ignorant of the real causes of Quantum anomalies, which one day will be explained completely in a naturalistic manner, as lightning is now.

Though the likelihood of the Higgs-Boson particle was highly regarded as most probable and there are even smaller particles that they are now looking for.
God is the opposite, in that God is highly unlikely.
According to string theory, there are very likely smaller particles than the Higgs-Boson yet to be discovered.
The nature of these particles is theoretical only, so yes, all theories differ and have inconsistencies, but the particles existence is extremely probable considering existing evidence.
God's existence is extremely improbable considering existing evidence.
Thus the difference.
Both differ in theoretical concepts, yet one is most likely to exist and the other is most unlikely to exist.
Besides there are only a handful of theories concerning sub-atomic particles so there is only a handful of inconsistencies.
As far as God goes there are as many concepts/perceptions as there are believers (say at least 5 billion) thus there are 5 billion inconsistencies concerning the perceptions of God.

@Sagey, except, I'd take you back to my example of the Higgs Boson which was only theoretical and there were many different idea's of what it could be before there was any evidence of it's existence, they were not consistent

@ LiamWhlaes: You started off with a fallacy, in that you defines God as being Possibly Imaginary, but then uses the term Exists. An imaginary entity cannot Exist in according to the definition of Exist.
As Con points out, the God being worshiped is subjective like Santa Claus, every person worships a different variation of the God, thus as an objective entity or stable universal imaginary being it cannot be defined as an Existing being. Because it is imaginary, different in character and scope to every individual, the God is impossible to define globally anyway. Okay, supernatural (how? and ho much?) depends on the individual's perception/ideas.
For something to Exist, the perception of it must be Consistent to all.
That cannot apply to anything Metaphysical or Subjective because the human brains are wired differently like fingerprints.
All perceptions of everything metaphysical differ.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro set up the debate in an interesting manner. Instead of debating the classic controversy of God's existence (ie are Christians etc correct in their beliefs?), Pro shifted the debate to the existence of God in the sense of dictionary definition of God. According to Pro's secula definition, God does exist. In fact, this secular definition is not incompatible with Atheism, something Pro pointed to. Con made smart arguments about Zeus and friends also existing by this definition, but didn't crystallize why this broadness bad thing or why Zeus doesn't exist Con might have argued that this definition makes the debate impossible or is unfair. However, Con doesn't make these arguments explicitly, and thus I have to accept Pro's definition. Near the end, Con somewhat mischaracterizes Pros argument, I think understandable because of the confusing round. Because the definition was not directly attacked, I have to give the win to Pro who showed that God does exist in a meaningful, effectual way

Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument boiled down to "People believe in X and therefore do Y, therefore X is real". This is not a sound argument, as Con points out. Pro, you showed that the impact was related to THE BELIEF, which clearly exists and which Con never contested. What you failed to show was that the impact was linked to the existence of the thing. Arguments to Con. All other categories were equal enough for government work. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.